Time series forecasting has attracted significant attention in the field of AI. Previous works have revealed that the Channel-Independent (CI) strategy improves forecasting performance by modeling each channel individually, but it often suffers from poor generalization and overlooks meaningful inter-channel interactions. Conversely, Channel-Dependent (CD) strategies aggregate all channels, which may introduce irrelevant information and lead to oversmoothing. Despite recent progress, few existing methods offer the flexibility to adaptively balance CI and CD strategies in response to varying channel dependencies. To address this, we propose a generic plugin xCPD, that can adaptively model the channel-patch dependencies from the perspective of graph spectral decomposition. Specifically, xCPD first projects multivariate signals into the frequency domain using a shared graph Fourier basis, and groups patches into low-, mid-, and high-frequency bands based on their spectral energy responses. xCPD then applies a channel-adaptive routing mechanism that dynamically adjusts the degree of inter-channel interaction for each patch, enabling selective activation of frequency-specific experts. This facilitates fine-grained input-aware modeling of smooth trends, local fluctuations, and abrupt transitions. xCPD can be seamlessly integrated on top of existing CI and CD forecasting models, consistently enhancing both accuracy and generalization across benchmarks. The code is available https://github.com/Clearloveyuan/xCPD.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: The proposed xCPD plugin consists of three modules: (A) spectral channel-patch embedding, (B) channel-patch grouping, and (C) channel-patch routing with Mixture-of-Experts (MoE).
Model
TSMixer
+ xCPD
DLinear
+ xCPD
PatchTST
+ xCPD
TimesNet
+ xCPD
Metric
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
ETTh1
96
0.361
0.392
0.357
0.388
0.384
0.397
0.381
0.392
0.414
0.419
0.402
0.404
0.384
0.402
0.378
0.398
192
0.404
0.418
0.389
0.405
0.433
0.427
0.430
0.421
0.460
0.445
0.443
0.435
0.436
0.429
0.422
0.423
336
0.420
0.431
0.402
0.411
0.479
0.456
0.472
0.444
0.501
0.466
0.482
0.451
0.491
0.469
0.478
0.456
720
0.463
0.472
0.458
0.461
0.506
0.503
0.497
0.485
0.500
0.488
0.494
0.482
0.521
0.500
0.509
0.491
ETTh2
96
0.274
0.341
0.270
0.336
0.314
0.369
0.302
0.357
0.302
0.348
0.274
0.335
0.340
0.374
0.330
0.368
Table 1: Long-term forecasting results on 9 real-world datasets in terms of MSE and MAE. The lookback horizon is set 96 (512 for TSMixer) and forecasting horizons are {96, 192, 336, 720}. The better performance in each setting is shown in bold . The best results for each row are underlined .
Model
TSMixer
+ LIFT
+ CCM
+ xCPD
DLinear
+ LIFT
+ CCM
+ xCPD
Metric
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
ETTh1
0.412
0.428
0.407
0.424
0.413
0.428
0.401
0.416
0.456
0.452
0.451
0.448
0.451
0.451
0.445
0.435
ETTh2
0.355
0.401
0.351
0.397
0.351
0.399
0.345
0.392
0.559
0.515
0.553
0.511
0.552
0.511
0.507
0.479
ETTm1
0.347
0.375
0.342
0.372
0.351
0.380
0.343
0.371
0.403
0.407
0.399
0.404
0.397
0.403
0.389
0.395
ETTm2
0.267
0.322
0.264
0.319
0.258
0.319
0.251
0.312
0.350
0.401
0.346
0.398
0.306
0.369
0.340
0.388
Exchange
0.381
0.414
0.378
0.411
0.355
0.402
0.349
0.396
0.354
0.414
0.351
0.411
0.348
0.409
0.312
0.380
Table 2: Averaged long-term forecasting results with horizons {96,192,336,720} and look-back horizon are 512 for TSMixer and 96 for DLinear on 9 datasets in terms of MSE and MAE. The better performance is shown in bold .
CD
CI
+PRReg
+LIFT
+PCD
+CCM
+xCPD
ETTh1
Linear
0.402
0.345
0.342
0.345
None
0.342
0.338
Transformer
0.861
0.655
0.539
0.528
0.621
0.518
0.512
ETTm1
Linear
0.404
0.354
0.311
0.316
None
0.310
0.305
Transformer
0.458
0.379
0.349
0.356
0.404
0.300
0.289
Exchange
Linear
0.051
0.119
0.048
0.050
None
0.045
0.042
Transformer
0.101
0.511
0.100
0.099
0.233
0.097
0.094
Table 3: Comparison of baselines under a general setting.
Model
TSMixer
+ LIFT
+ CCM
+ xCPD
DLinear
+ LIFT
+ CCM
+ xCPD
PatchTST
+ LIFT
+ CCM
+ xCPD
TimesNet
+ LIFT
+ CCM
+ xCPD
M4 (Yearly)
SMAPE
14.70
14.88
14.67
14.56
16.96
15.93
14.33
14.12
13.47
13.35
13.30
13.28
15.37
15.12
14.42
14.36
MASE
3.343
3.341
3.370
3.221
4.283
4.038
3.144
3.121
3.019
3.006
2.997
2.989
3.554
3.512
3.448
3.434
OWA
0.875
0.875
0.873
0.870
1.058
0.937
0.834
0.829
0.792
0.788
0.781
0.778
0.918
0.864
0.802
0.795
M4 (Quarterly)
SMAPE
11.18
11.02
10.98
10.88
12.14
11.48
10.51
10.49
10.38
10.36
10.35
10.35
10.46
10.28
10.12
10.10
MASE
1.346
1.338
1.332
1.326
1.520
1.482
1.243
1.224
1.233
1.228
1.224
1.218
1.227
1.221
1.183
1.176
OWA
0.998
0.992
0.984
0.976
1.106
1.098
0.931
0.928
0.921
0.918
0.915
0.912
0.923
0.913
0.897
0.889
Table 4: Short-term forecasting results on M4 dataset in terms of SMAPE, MASE, and OWA, and Stock dataset in terms of MSE and MAE. The forecasting horizon is {7,24} for the Stock.
Model
TSMixer
+ CCM
+ xCPD
DLinear
+ CCM
+ xCPD
PatchTST
+ CCM
+ xCPD
TimesNet
+ CCM
+ xCPD
IMP(%)
h1 → h2
0.288
0.283
0.280
0.358
0.344
0.335
0.442
0.438
0.418
0.391
0.388
0.384
2.318
0.374
0.370
0.366
0.855
0.843
0.822
0.582
0.571
0.544
0.540
0.516
0.510
2.366
h1 → m1
0.763
0.710
0.702
0.782
0.723
0.702
0.754
0.692
0.678
0.887
0.827
0.801
2.300
1.252
1.215
1.198
1.243
1.224
1.212
1.892
1.135
1.128
1.623
1.601
1.589
0.937
h1 → m2
0.959
0.937
0.928
1.213
0.912
0.890
1.132
0.903
0.892
1.199
1.122
1.086
1.950
1.765
1.758
1.712
2.132
1.732
1.680
2.015
1.732
1.712
2.204
1.874
1.835
2.214
Table 5: Zero-shot forecasting MSE results on ETT datasets. The forecasting horizon is {96,720} .
Figure 2: Model efficiency comparison on Traffic.
Variants
ETTh1
ETTm1
Exchange
Solar-Eng.
Weather
Electricity
Traffic
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
DLinear+xCPD
0.445
0.435
0.389
0.395
0.312
0.380
0.322
0.393
0.253
0.301
0.197
0.287
0.606
0.372
Remove
w/o Shared Basis
0.462
0.456
0.404
0.415
0.331
0.395
0.341
0.399
0.267
0.310
0.205
0.295
0.618
0.379
w/o Freq. Partition
0.448
0.394
0.399
0.403
0.318
0.388
0.329
0.398
0.264
0.307
0.203
0.292
0.610
0.376
w/o Node Group
0.461
0.455
0.406
0.415
0.329
0.394
0.344
0.402
0.266
0.310
0.204
0.293
0.616
0.377
w/o Filters
0.465
0.456
0.408
0.416
0.333
0.397
0.344
0.402
0.272
0.313
0.209
0.298
0.623
0.383
Table 6: Ablation study of xCPD. Look-back horizon is 96 and results are averaged over forecasting horizons {96,192,336,720} . Best and second-best results are marked in bold and underline .
Figure 3: Filters visualization of HULL on ETTh1.
Appendix figures & tables12 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Dataset
Type
Dim
Lookback Length
Prediction Length
Total Length
Frequency
Domain
Long-term Forecasting Datasets
ETTh1
Multivariate
7
96
{96, 192, 336, 720}
17,420
Hourly
Electricity
ETTh2
Multivariate
7
96
{96, 192, 336, 720}
17,420
Hourly
Electricity
ETTm1
Multivariate
7
96
{96, 192, 336, 720}
69,680
15-min
Electricity
ETTm2
Multivariate
7
96
{96, 192, 336, 720}
69,680
15-min
Electricity
Weather
Multivariate
21
96
{96, 192, 336, 720}
52,695
10-min
Meteorology
Appendix
Table 7: Statistics of all datasets used in our experiments. “Frequency” denotes the sampling interval of time points.
Method
ETTh1
ETTh2
ETTm1
ETTm2
Exchange
Weather
Electricity
Traffic
PatchTST+PCD
0.468/0.456
0.379/0.399
0.382/0.393
0.272/0.325
0.366/0.403
0.255/0.281
0.198/0.288
0.482/0.300
PatchTST+xCPD
0.455/0.443
0.367/0.393
0.371/0.388
0.265/0.317
0.358/0.397
0.248/0.272
0.191/0.280
0.466/0.292
Appendix
Table 8: Long-term forecasting results with lookback window 96 and prediction horizons {96, 192, 336, 720}. Results show MSE/MAE averaged over three runs with best in bold .
Model
ETTh1
ETTh2
ETTm1
ETTm2
Solar-Energy
Weather
iTransformer
0.455/0.447
0.383/0.407
0.407/0.411
0.288/0.332
0.233/0.262
0.258/0.278
iTransformer+xCPD
0.438/0.440
0.375/0.400
0.394/0.401
0.277/0.325
0.226/0.256
0.250/0.269
TimeMixer
0.447/0.440
0.365/0.396
0.381/0.395
0.275/0.323
0.216/0.280
0.240/0.271
TimeMixer+xCPD
0.435/0.432
0.358/0.389
0.372/0.388
0.268/0.317
0.210/0.275
0.233/0.266
DUET
0.443/0.437
0.373/0.398
0.390/0.394
0.280/0.325
0.238/0.235
0.252/0.273
DUET +xCPD
0.436/0.433
0.364/0.392
0.381/0.390
0.275/0.318
0.231/0.234
0.246/0.270
Appendix
Table 9: Performance on iTransformer and TimeMixer. Results averaged over forecasting horizons {96, 192, 336, 720} with lookback window 96. Values show MSE/MAE with best results in bold .
Method
Forecasting Horizon
96
192
336
720
MSE/MAE
MSE/MAE
MSE/MAE
MSE/MAE
DLinear
0.650/0.396
0.598/0.370
0.605/0.373
0.645/0.394
DLinear+xCPD
0.636 / 0.386
0.574 / 0.356
0.586 / 0.362
0.630 / 0.387
Appendix
Table 10: Performance on Traffic dataset with look-back horizon 96.
Method
Prediction Horizon
96
192
336
720
MSE/MAE
MSE/MAE
MSE/MAE
MSE/MAE
DLinear
0.412/0.282
0.423/0.287
0.437/0.296
0.468/0.316
DLinear+xCPD
0.406 / 0.280
0.411 / 0.283
0.428 / 0.295
0.457 / 0.311
Appendix
Table 11: Performance on Traffic dataset with look-back horizon 336.
Model
Configuration
MSE ↓
MAE ↓
DLinear+xCPD
w/ Shared Basis
0.389
0.395
w/o Shared Basis
0.413
0.425
TimesNet+xCPD
w/ Shared Basis
0.373
0.384
w/o Shared Basis
0.395
0.403
Appendix
Table 12: Ablation study under synthetic non-stationarity on ETTm1 (lookback window: 96, forecasting horizon: 96). The shared spectral basis maintains performance despite temporal perturbations.
Model
TSMixer
+ CCM
+ xCPD
DLinear
+ CCM
+ xCPD
PatchTST
+ CCM
+ xCPD
TimesNet
+ CCM
+ xCPD
MSE / MAE
MSE / MAE
MSE / MAE
MSE / MAE
MSE / MAE
MSE / MAE
MSE / MAE
MSE / MAE
MSE / MAE
MSE / MAE
MSE / MAE
MSE / MAE
h1 → h2
0.288 / 0.357
0.283 / 0.353
0.280 / 0.348
0.358 / 0.405
0.344 / 0.392
0.335 / 0.382
0.442 / 0.458
0.438 / 0.449
0.418 / 0.426
0.391 / 0.412
0.388 / 0.410
0.384 / 0.404
0.374 / 0.414
0.370 / 0.413
0.366 / 0.406
0.855 / 0.682
0.843 / 0.677
0.822 / 0.654
0.582 / 0.565
0.571 / 0.562
0.544 / 0.551
0.540 / 0.508
0.516 / 0.491
0.510 / 0.488
h1 → m1
0.763 / 0.677
0.710 / 0.652
0.702 / 0.645
0.782 / 0.679
0.723 / 0.658
0.702 / 0.632
0.754 / 0.688
0.692 / 0.645
0.678 / 0.630
0.887 / 0.718
0.827 / 0.700
0.801 / 0.682
1.252 / 0.815
1.215 / 0.803
1.198 / 0.792
1.243 / 0.835
1.224 / 0.812
1.212 / 0.798
1.892 / 0.954
1.135 / 0.832
1.128 / 0.821
1.623 / 0.981
1.601 / 0.964
1.589 / 0.952
h1 → m2
0.959 / 0.694
0.937 / 0.689
0.928 / 0.680
1.213 / 0.808
0.912 / 0.682
0.890 / 0.673
1.132 / 0.732
0.903 / 0.682
0.892 / 0.671
1.199 / 0.794
1.122 / 0.731
1.086 / 0.719
Appendix
Table 13: Zero-shot forecasting results on ETT datasets. Look-back horizon is 96 and the forecasting horizon is {96,720} . Best performance on each setting is in bold .
Method
Memory (MB)
Time (ms/iter)
Baseline Models
PatchTST
12,458
29
TimesNet
13,005
70
TSMixer
13,088
89
With CCM Plugin
PatchTST + CCM
25,034
161
Appendix
Table 14: Computational efficiency comparison on Traffic dataset. Memory usage and training time measured on single NVIDIA A100 GPU.
Tasks
Dataset
Length of Patch
e_layers
lr
d_ff
Num. of Epochs
ETTh1
T′/16
1
1e - 4
256
10
ETTh2
T′/16
1
1e - 4
256
10
ETTm1
T′/12
2
1e - 4
256
10
Long-term
ETTm2
T′/6
2
1e - 4
128
10
Forecasting
Exchange
T′/24
2
1e - 4
256
10
Weather
T′/2
2
1e - 4
256
10
Appendix
Table 15: Hyperparameter settings for different datasets, where T′ is the forecasting horizon, e_layers is the number of graph blocks, lr is the learning rate, and d_ff is the dimension of feed-forward layers.
Variant
ETTh1
ETTh2
ETTm1
ETTm2
Exchange
Solar
k-NN (top-30%)
0.449 / 0.438
0.511 / 0.482
0.393 / 0.399
0.346 / 0.394
0.315 / 0.381
0.326 / 0.396
k-NN (top-40%)
0.447 / 0.437
0.509 / 0.480
0.391 / 0.398
0.342 / 0.388
0.314 / 0.381
0.325 / 0.395
k-NN (top-50%)
0.445 / 0.435
0.507 / 0.479
0.389 / 0.395
0.340 / 0.388
0.312 / 0.380
0.322 / 0.393
k-NN (top-60%)
0.446 / 0.435
0.507 / 0.479
0.389 / 0.396
0.341 / 0.388
0.311 / 0.379
0.321 / 0.393
k-NN (top-70%)
0.450 / 0.438
0.510 / 0.482
0.394 / 0.400
0.346 / 0.393
0.317 / 0.382
0.325 / 0.395
Appendix
Table 16: Sensitivity to sparsification ratio α (top- α edges retained). Reported metrics are averaged MSE/MAE over forecasting horizons {96, 192, 336, 720} with input length 96 on DLinear+xCPD.
Model
Patch Length
Running Time (ms/iter)
MSE
MAE
Memory (GB)
DLinear+xCPD
16
78
0.183
0.270
∼ 7.0
DLinear+xCPD
24
55
0.181
0.269
∼ 5.5
DLinear+xCPD
32
30
0.180
0.268
∼ 4.5
DLinear+xCPD
64
6
0.181
0.269
∼ 3.2
DLinear+xCPD
96
5.5
0.184
0.271
∼ 2.8
Appendix
Table 17: Running time, forecasting accuracy, and GPU memory usage of DLinear+xCPD on the Electricity dataset with forecasting horizon T′=192 .
Setting
Horizon=96
Horizon=192
Horizon=336
Horizon=720
Overlap = 1
0.180 / 0.267
0.187 / 0.275
0.199 / 0.296
0.245 / 0.328
Overlap = 2
0.178 / 0.267
0.189 / 0.275
0.201 / 0.297
0.248 / 0.329
No Overlap
0.174 / 0.262
0.180 / 0.268
0.195 / 0.293
0.240 / 0.326
Appendix
Table 18: Forecasting accuracy (MSE/MAE) of DLinear+xCPD on the Electricity dataset under different patch-overlap settings and forecasting horizons.
Multivariate time-series analysis involves extracting informative representations from sequences of multiple interdependent variables, supporting tasks such as forecasting, imputation, and anomaly detection. In real-world scenarios, these variables are typically collected from a shared context or underlying phenomenon, suggesting the presence of latent dependencies across time and channels that can be leveraged to improve performance. However, recent findings show that channel-independent (CI) models, which assume no inter-variable dependencies, often outperform channel-dependent (CD) models that explicitly model such relationships. This surprising result indicates that current CD models may not fully exploit their potential due to limitations in how dependencies are captured. Recent studies have revisited channel dependence modeling with various approaches; however, these methods often employ indirect modeling strategies, which can lead to meaningful dependencies being overlooked. To address this issue, we introduce XCTFormer, a transformer-based channel-dependent (CD) model that explicitly captures cross-temporal and cross-channel dependencies via an enhanced attention mechanism. The model operates in a token-to-token fashion, modeling pairwise dependencies between every pair of tokens across time and channels. The architecture comprises (i) a data processing module, (ii) a novel Cross-Relational Attention Block (CRAB) that increases capacity and expressiveness, and (iii) an optional Dependency Compression Plugin (DeCoP) that improves scalability. Through extensive experiments on three time-series benchmarks, we show that XCTFormer achieves strong results compared to widely recognized baselines; in particular, it attains state-of-the-art performance on the imputation task, outperforming the second-best method by an average of 20.8% in MSE and 15.3% in MAE.
Israel Zexer, Omri Azencot
The Stein Faculty of Computer and Information Science Ben-Gurion University of the Negev
Multivariate time series forecasting plays a critical role in real-world applications, including weather prediction, stock analysis, and health monitoring. Due to the diversity of data sources, time series exhibit diverse temporal dynamics, often accompanied by various irregularities such as missing values and non-uniform sampling frequencies. Such irregularities lead to complex and asynchronous temporal dependencies across channels. Thus, a single model with a fixed patching scheme often fails to adapt well to diverse multivariate time series, hindering accurate forecasting. In this paper, we propose TiWeaver, a unified framework designed to handle temporal dynamics and fine-grained inter-channel dependencies adaptively. Specifically, we introduce a Graph-Guided Adaptive Tokenizer (G2AT) that divides time series into high contextually coherent patches by jointly considering temporal density and representation consistency. In addition, we propose a Fine-grained Asynchronous Dependency Extractor (FADE), which is designed to model fine-grained asynchronous inter-channel dependencies while incorporating long-term historical dependencies. We evaluate TiWeaver on 12 real-world time series datasets, where it achieves state-of-the-art performance, outperforming existing methods up to 25%. These results demonstrate its robustness and effectiveness across diverse domains and data characteristics.
Zhe Li, Jindong Tian, Hao Miao +3
East China Normal University Shanghai, China · Hong Kong Polytechnic University Hong Kong, China · Aalborg University Aalborg, Denmark
Multivariate time series forecasting often struggles to capture long-range dependencies due to fixed lookback windows. Retrieval-augmented forecasting addresses this by retrieving historical segments from memory, but existing approaches rely on a channel-agnostic strategy that applies the same references to all variables. This neglects inter-variable heterogeneity, where different channels exhibit distinct periodicities and spectral profiles. We propose CRAFT (Channel-wise retrieval-augmented forecasting), a novel framework that performs retrieval independently for each channel. To ensure efficiency, CRAFT adopts a two-stage pipeline: a sparse relation graph constructed in the time domain prunes irrelevant candidates, and spectral similarity in the frequency domain ranks references, emphasizing dominant periodic components while suppressing noise. Experiments on seven public benchmarks demonstrate that CRAFT outperforms state-of-the-art forecasting baselines, achieving superior accuracy with practical inference efficiency.